The debate about effective teamwork takes on a new angle this Labor day weekend: Harold Meyerson’s powerful article in the Washington Post about American workers facing higher chances of being laid off, increasing healthcare cost premiums and preclusion from union membership than their European counterparts has already sparked a firestorm (see the online commentary). This coupled with ample stories how CEOs are personally gaining while sitting on $1.8 trillion following cost cuts during the recession suggest the U.S. workplace may not be that happy a place these days.

I read Meyerson’s article shortly after hearing The City of Santa Fe is passing a workplace anti-bullying resolution – the first of its kind. Statistics (who trusts these nowadays?) indicate the scale of workplace bullying is significant, hence a number of local councils have been taking a look at healthy workplace legislation.

What is this all about? Is there a connection between these developments? I am neither a statistician nor an economist: I consult and coach teams and organizations across all sectors and have been alarmed by one reality: the number of employees (up and down and across many types of organization) suffering from stress, insomnia, depression and substance abuse because (in their words) of the workplace environment. Something is amiss and I reckon if you connect the dots this is about the pervasive ignorance about what it takes to build productive, effective, motivated and a highly engaged workforce.

Over 70% of organizational life is organized around teams, most headed up by senior managers who may have smarts and strong technical skills but pay lip service to building and supporting top notch teamwork. The result: too many bosses who are bullies or insensitive to the needs of others; a singular focus on financial goals when the bottom line is not the same as building real value; atrocious workplace conditions that demoralize staff who may already be suffering weak motivation; and toleration of behaviors that create obstacles to open communication, constructive feedback, listening, learning, knowledge sharing and innovation.

Economists (and for that matter, statisticians) might speak to other antidotes but mine is this: getting every CEO and senior manager to understand what high performing teamwork really means – and not the ‘when I say jump, you need to ask how high’ kind of ‘teamwork’: the old command and control, directive style of leadership should have been kicked out the door years ago. I mean teamwork that starts with the premise that we need each other to leverage the full diversity of talent to focus on innovation and overcoming our challenges. Building and sustaining respectful, caring, supportive, and purpose-oriented teamwork.

This is not a ‘soft stuff’ approach but one that is more likely to get this country out of its recession. Perhaps only with this approach – training CEOs to become better team players – will we build opportunities for real growth and fairness in the workplace. That beats relying on the inevitable ups and downs of the stock market to get us out of trouble, I’d say.

Some conflict is inevitable when two or more people work together: misunderstandings can emerge from different personalities or styles; different opinions; ego or turf battles; and miscommunication. Some people can be moody, bitchy or outright mean: we have our good and our bad days!

Few teams bother with establishing internal rules for how conflict can be addressed in a healthy and constructive manner. The result, often exacerbated by a leader who shies away from conflict management, is festering resentment or worse. I know of teams where individuals give each other the silent treatment or attack one another at the drop of a hat. Unresolved conflict kicks in coping mechanisms ranging from venting to evading. The source of conflict gets stuffed under the proverbial carpet, in some cases for months, if not years.

What does conflict avoidance do to teamwork? A team does not function properly (there will inevitably be denial about that, too!): conflict sucks energy from a team like a sponge. People will react differently to the situation often making things worse. A team can become completely divided adversely impacting productivity, knowledge and information sharing, communication etc The focus can shift from important goals to scoring points, ‘saving face’ and other inappropriate behavior.

Instead of tolerating energy sponges, teams should have in place agreements on how conflict will be raised and discussed – prior agreements creates expectations and a safe container to allow difficult issues to be tackled by team members. Instead of jumping to conclusions and making things worse, teams should commit to finding out what can be learned from the conflict and how the learning can be applied to increase trust, mutual support and performance. In other words, conflict offers a great opportunity to take a team to a whole new level – to everyone’s satisfaction.

Bottom line: Embrace conflict, don’t stifle it!

I was at a meeting yesterday when someone said, “I help businesses with their strategic planning”. Naturally, as a strategic planner myself, I was curious about the method/model she uses. She mentioned she typically undertakes a SWOT analysis (identifying, preferably with key stakeholders including the staff, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) and providing the client company with recommendations for implementing agreed goals and actions. Uhm. This sounded fairly simple and I like the KIS (keep it simple)principle but in my heart I know simplicity and leading change are not that compatible.

To begin with, inevitably you have an organizational leader who may be dissatisfied with the status quo but that’s not the same as having the motivation (or stomach) for acting on change needs. Many CEOs are fairly protective of their own “baby”, no matter how much crying goes on! After all, in many cases they are the company’s founder who started a business from an idea, some of their own money and the kindness of a few supportive friends who believed in the CEO, or at least in the idea of making money.

Fast forward a few years when a company experiences internal and external changes it has not bargained for: changing markets, personnel problems, talent drain, high expectations from employees for rewards and recognition, new top team members with different views of the priorities etc etc Communication and gaining clarity become challenging. What is the leader to do?

For sure, he or she should be willing to open up a candid dialogue with all staff about the current and future state of the company. But noone should ignore or minimize how such conversations can throw up a sense of uncertainty, fear, anxiety, aggression, posturing and human behaviors that Shakespeare and many others have written plots and plays galore. Seriously, ‘organizational change strategy’sounds awfully rational when any change management effort will always - yes – I say always – throw up irrational behavior among leaders and employees alike.

For that reason, strategic planning facilitation involves much more than doing a SWOT analysis and coming up with an executable plan. Over-intellectualizing the process will not get you very far. After all, at the end of the day, change in human systems i.e. organizations calls for emotional self awareness and emotional management. Leaders need to take a hard look at themselves and test their own motivation to change the staus quo. After all, the change will be an emotional journey many CEOs would prefer to skip!

In my previous blog, I wrote about team coaching and why I think such coaching should be more pervasive in the business world. Though many companies are starting to use team coaching, according to one study (Henley University of Reading, UK), while 51% of organizations surveyed reported using individual coaching, only 4% use team coaching.

Having been a team coach for several years, I have some idea of the obstacles to seeing more team coaching. Many leaders, managers and HR Directors are unclear what team coaching is. Some of them fear it may involve some kind of fuzzy, kumbaya soul searching by teams without any business outcome. Many of these same people have had no exposure to team coaching and feel uncomfortable with the idea. In some cases, there’s a fear what team coaching may unleash. In a recent case, I had one CEO who feared the team’s morale was so low that the coaching would reveal serious cracks in his team! His team, I knew, was suffering from low morale and was not achieving its best. Why wouldn’t the CEO want to tackle this head on with the help of a trained team coach? We tend to fear what we don’t understand or are unfamilar with.

In short, team coaching will become more widely accepted when the benefits of team coaching become more publicized: Team Coaching International has invested in researching teams who embark on team coaching following a baseline diagnostic that is taken 6 – 9 months later. Remarkably, productivity and positivity (akin to morale) typically improve by about 25 percent: now, that’s a heck of a good reason to take team coaching seriously.

Though the concept of team coaching is not new (think sports), most businesses stick with individual one-to-one coaching, primarily to support up and coming talent or deal with perceived skills shortages of individual employees. This is a pity and makes little sense when you think about the sheer number of teams across most businesses, and consider how many of them are enduring problems impacting on performance and productivity. On top of that, many teams suffer low morale which impacts their ability to achieve on their goals.

Will there be a time when team coaching in the business world becomes more widespread and celebrated? What will it take?

First, let me explain what I mean by team coaching. Team coaching focusus on the team as a single entity (rather than a set of individuals) and as a system of relationships, work processes, goals and context. For teams to excel there has to be a clear, common purpose, effective communication and trust, supportive leadership, and accountability for achieving desired outcomes. Coaching supports a candid exchange among team members how the team can do better as well as direct feedback on how things are being accomplished (or not). Many team coaches use a team diagnostic to kick off the frank conversation that has, in some cases, been stifled for months, if not years. It can be like releasing a pressure cooker!
Team coaching not only focuses on problems and tensions. Rather, team coaching is aimed at improving productivity and morale to raise the team’s overall performance and sense of fulfilment. Isn’t that what we need more of?

See the next post for ‘What it will take for team coaching to spread’.

In a recent study of over 1500 CEOs, IBM discovered that most leaders believe the No. 1 requirement in today’s’ economy is creativity. Moreover, this creativity is understood to be less likely to be attained through traditional organizational structures, even when suggestion boxes and reward systems exist. The aversion to risk taking and internal obstacles vis a vis typical bureaucracies and turf issues often counter the support for true innovation.
Some organizations are taking a novel approach and investing in the construction of multi- skilled, dedicated teams given the freedom and empowered to network, research, explore, experiment, and think outside the box to bring about new ideas. These organizations clearly see that the status quo is unsustainable to sustain competitive advantage.
George Maltabarow, CEO of Energy Australia Corporation, for example, established ‘Electric Thinking’ groups of people whose job it was to investigate new frontiers and develop a pathway through accomplishing real change. These groups were encouraged to network expansively and develop relationships with universities, customers, and other stakeholders as part of their remit to “being the vanguard of change”.
What about making sure every team is given the task to do some electric thinking? Wouldn’t organizations (and, in turn, their customers) be better served? Sure, this would mean a fundamental change in the way leadership is exercised: less command and control and more emphasis on connecting and interacting with employees – at all levels. In today’s climate it seems a no-brainer to focus on building teams mandated to collaborate, learn, and exercise their power from leveraging diverse perspectives, skills and expertise. Teamwork should be up there with creativity as the No. 1 requirement to stay profitable and compete in the market successfully.

There are literally tombs written about effective leadership, leading teams or change (often the same thing), the needed characteristics or traits of a good leader, admirable CEOs who have accomplished great things etc Look up Amazon or Wikipedia and you’ll get millions of hits. My own bookshelves and filing cabinets are full of insightful (and not so insightful) lessons and clues about the stuff of leadership. There are some great thought leaders on the subject, too – think Seth Godwin, Daniel Pink, Peter Senge as a few examples. I know some good leaders, too: ordinary people who have executed on an idea and created an organizational environment that supports innovation, motivation, growth, learning, a frank exchange of ideas and lessons learned, and uphold decent values around integrity and purpose.
What is clear to me, however, is something is missing when so many organizational teams are functioning only at average: in one study conducted by Team Coaching International, the average productivity score of over 200 teams in 4 countries (Canada, the UK, US, and Australia) was a mere 5.3 out of a top score of 9. Morale levels were similar. These represent huge performance and morale gaps: a staggering 4 points out of 9 across 14 factors that make for high performing teamwork. When I read the newspapers and see how many of our systems are in need of major reform (think education, healthcare, transport, intelligence, energy etc), I wonder whether we have the leadership it takes if the 21st century is to be one of true wellbeing for more than a few.
Over the next few weeks, I plan on writing up my thoughts and ideas on how leaders need to become more like integrators. What do I mean? Leadership is not simply about ideas, motivating others, financial savvy, “success” in building a profitable entity. It goes beyond vision, strategy, discipline and focus. Where the rubber really hits the road is how leaders integrate 1) constant change 2) build and support ongoing effective teamwork, 3) produce results that customers value over price and 4) apply lessons for continuous improvement. After all, leadership, unlike management of the status quo, must be about change and creating better conditions in a world challenged by mediocrity, complacency, and doing just enough to get by.

On July 12 the Office of Personnel Management issued the findings of the largest-ever survey of the federal government workforce -http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2010/Reports/

The results can be construed as “encouraging”:  three quarters of the 500,ooo workers who responded say they feel a sense of accomplishment and are satisified with their pay but even the director of the OPM acknowledges the recession may have influenced these results. Look closer and there are some further  pointers for how the government might look at the results and move from good to great:

Compared with the private sector, fewer government workers feel a good job is being done by their immediate supervisor/team leader (68% vs 74%) and only 45% of the federal workforce think their team is able to recruit people with the right skills to do the job. Only 31% of respondents to the government survey feel steps are taken to deal with poor performance and 55% believe their team’s skill level has improved in the last year.  Curious, then, that 82% rated the overall quality of work by their unit as “good” or “very good”.

Individual satisfaction is high while teamwork seems to be  compromised by, at best, mediocre leadership, skills shortages and team underperformance. What is wrong with this picture?

As with many survey results, there is alot to analyze but, on the face of it at least, one questions whether there is enough attention being given to the fundamental need for the federal government to be adept at being adaptable in this fast-changing world. The question whether individual workers feel satisfaction is surely not the most compelling one to ask when we consider the change we are looking at in the twenty-first century. Given the system-wide problems in health, education, security, the environment etc etc surely we need a close up examination of the federal government’s ability to develop leaders who can motivate employee engagement and team productivity to produce high performance, quality and innovation. Perhaps  then  taxpayers will be more reassured and the workforce across government agencies  nearer 100%  satisfied.

These are interesting, if not unsettling, times, regardless whether you are a business (or other kind of) leader, or you happen to be working with one.  Juggling day-to-day tasks with planning the future is onerous for individuals, teams and organizations.  Planning for what? How far out? With whom?  To what end?

These questions are legitimate for change these days is constant, complex and, in certain cases, seemingly wild.  Wild in the sense some of the changes have far-reaching impact we have yet to understand.  11 years ago, Google did not exist.   6 months ago, I was not thinking about blogging, never mind actively engaging in what has now become a household term, Social Media.  Life is becoming one constant adjustment except the adjustments are no longer fine-tuning.  We are transitioning from an era of relative stability.  To what, exactly? How does one plan for the unknown?

While I like to be supportive and encouraging, I do not have the answers.  I don’t think anyone has.  For sure there are plenty of smart thought leaders offering powerful insights and analyses to help us make sense of the world’s (r)evolution.  The problem is that no person or group has the depth or breadth of knowledge across every discipline.   I believe we’re all learning and trying to discover the new era.  It would be good if we do more of this together: as renowned theorist and pioneer in innovative thinking, Peter Senge, would say:  our collective intelligence is needed more than ever. Thought leaders bring a perspective and a valuable one.  How are other voices to be heard?

This blog, then,  is not intended to offer so-called ‘expertise’, but instead to offer a place for mutual learning  and understanding.   My blog writing will focus on the ubiquitous challenges of change, leadership and teamwork: the intersection virtually everyone and all organizations are struggling with as we shift from one era to another.  The struggle is why we are all having to learn, including me.    Learning can be uncomfortable: it takes time, effort, preparedness to make mistakes and feel silly or behind in what seems a race for knowledge and innovation.  My intention is neither to make anyone feel silly but to stimulate a dialogue to tap our wisdom to shape the world in front of us.  I happen to look at the (r)evolution in a positive light:  notwithstanding the myriad unresolved problems and questions we have, I’m optimistic about the future and believe something transformative is truly under way.

Allow Me To Introduce Myself

Caroline Nicholl

Facilitator

Writer

Team coach

A Brit & an American

Former cop

You can read all the formalities about me here but I welcome your feedback and help in shaping me as I learn about this new era and we walk down this new path of uncertainty together.